When a Cop's Report Is Inconsistent with his Bodycam Video

追加: 2026-05-30

[00:00:04]On January 7th, 2026, Christine Francis Lzinski was charged with operating while intoxicated pursuant to Michigan compiled laws following a traffic stop initiated by Corporal Dne Hunter of the Flat Rock Police Department. The encounter began during a general road patrol near northbound Telegraph Road and Jialter Road. District Attorney Roger Cayenne contended that Corporal Hunter observed Miss Lzinski's pickup truck cross the double yellow lines multiple times after turning onto Gibralar Road, constituting a series of lane violations under the Michigan Vehicle Code. Before trial, defense attorney Edward James Holberg filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the traffic stop was an unlawful investigatory seizure from its very inception under both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1 11 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963. Defense Council asserted that Corporal Hunter lacked the reasonable articulable suspicion legally required to justify a warrantless vehicular detention and relied heavily on the officer's own body cam footage to challenge his written report. On April 30th, 2026, a pre-trial hearing was held before Judge Michael K.

[00:01:02]McN. After the state and defense waved their rights to an opening statement, Mr. Cayenne called its first witness, Corporal Hunter, to the stand. Mr. Holberg wasn't present in the hearing, so his colleague, Miss Leslie K. AOK, cross-examinated Corporal Hunter.

[00:01:15]Officer, as a result of the stop, you prepared a written report. Is that correct?

[00:01:19]>> Yes.

[00:01:20]>> And did you complete that report same day or within hours of the stop? I know we're talking the stop is around 10:00 p.m., correct?

[00:01:29]>> Tell.

[00:01:30]>> So, it would have been you would have compared that report that night into perhaps the early morning hours of the next day.

[00:01:37]>> I'd have to see the exact date that I put on the report. It hasn't been time, but that normally is how it goes. Yes.

[00:01:45]And when you procure a report, would you intend that report to be accurate and complete?

[00:01:51]>> Yes.

[00:01:55]>> And that report would reflect everything that led up to we're talking about this particular traffic stop. So that your report would have included everything that led up to that traffic stop.

[00:02:04]Correct.

[00:02:05]>> Most cases. Yes.

[00:02:09]Do you rec have you reviewed this report in preparation for today?

[00:02:14]>> Yes.

[00:02:15]>> So you're familiar.

[00:02:18]>> Correct.

[00:02:19]>> Yes.

[00:02:22]>> Do you recall what you stated in the report?

[00:02:27]>> I mean there there's a whole police report. So we got to be a little bit more specific.

[00:02:31]>> Okay.

[00:02:31]>> And then I can I'd like to review the report ask a specific question about incest.

[00:02:36]May I present report?

[00:02:39]>> Absolutely.

[00:02:45]>> Review it and then when you're done, let me know.

[00:02:47]>> Okay.

[00:02:48]>> In particular, I'll certainly was interested in the very first paragraph under the second page.

[00:02:54]>> Okay. The Okay.

[00:02:56]>> Starts with on 1726 and with 35.

[00:03:00]>> Okay.

[00:03:02]and your question.

[00:03:05]>> You can Okay, just do me a favor. I'll testify directly in reading from it.

[00:03:09]Fair enough.

[00:03:10]>> Go ahead.

[00:03:12]>> Okay. So, according to your report, your observations of Machiski began on northbound telegraph. Correct.

[00:03:18]>> Correct.

[00:03:19]>> And according to your report, your car scout car was directly behind her car while driving traveling northbound telegraph. Correct.

[00:03:26]>> Correct. And you continued to be behind her according to your report as she made the turn on Jialter Road. Correct.

[00:03:34]>> Is that a yes?

[00:03:35]>> Yes.

[00:03:37]>> And again according to report you observed her swerving on telegraph.

[00:03:42]Correct.

[00:03:42]>> It would have been at least one time.

[00:03:46]>> And according to your report as she turned on to Gibralar Road, your report says that she crossed over the solid dump double yellow lines two two times or more. Correct.

[00:03:57]Correct.

[00:03:59]>> And according to report, you stopped her actuator's traffic stop after seeing these two crosses over the yellow line from your report. Correct.

[00:04:07]>> Correct.

[00:04:08]>> On this date u date and time of the stop, you were also wearing a body cam.

[00:04:12]Correct.

[00:04:13]>> Correct.

[00:04:14]>> And it recorded your interactions this night with Miss Kinsky.

[00:04:18]>> Correct.

[00:04:19]>> Have you reviewed that footage?

[00:04:22]>> The just the excerpt. Yes, >> you have. I was made aware of the time stamp.

[00:04:27]>> Okay, great. Um, at some point in time, I think you testified a few moments ago, you were informed by one of your fellow officers that M. Luchinsky was friends with the local police. Correct.

[00:04:41]>> Correct.

[00:04:45]>> And the part that I I'm thinking that you're saying that you reviewed on your body cam, do you remember your response to that statement? cast on mission 7.

[00:04:54]>> Okay. Do you recall saying just so you guys know what I saw?

[00:05:00]>> Yes.

[00:05:01]>> And then you went on to tell your fellow officers what you observed. Correct.

[00:05:06]>> I want to make sure that they're what I was telling very brief summary synopsis.

[00:05:14]>> I'm just asking if you told your fellow officers what you observed.

[00:05:18]>> Yes.

[00:05:19]And in fact, you said, quote, "Just so you guys know what I saw coming down to Bralter when she turned from Telegraph."

[00:05:28]Does that sound accurate?

[00:05:30]>> Right.

[00:05:31]>> And when she turned from Telegraph on to Gibralar, correct?

[00:05:36]>> Is that a Yes.

[00:05:37]>> Yes. I'm sorry.

[00:05:38]>> We'll remind you. Um, and then you went on to say, "I thought she looked like she was over the line. I couldn't really see it there coming down to Bralter.

[00:05:48]Came down to Bralter, right?

[00:05:50]>> Yeah.

[00:05:52]>> So, in in that statement, you did not in the statement to your fellow officer, you did not say you saw her saw her on driving on telegraph.

[00:06:01]Correct.

[00:06:03]>> That summation that we're talking about that was on body cam that you did not indicate to your fellow officers that you saw her on telegraph. I did not tell Corman with the portion of her driving that I did. No, I did not.

[00:06:17]>> You did not state that she was directly in front of your scout car on. Correct.

[00:06:22]>> Correct.

[00:06:22]>> And you did not tell officer it Goldmith.

[00:06:26]>> Corporal Goldman.

[00:06:27]>> Okay. That you observed the defendant swerving on Pel. Correct.

[00:06:32]>> Did not tell that Goldman. You did not tell the corporal that you followed her as she turned on Gibralar Road. Correct.

[00:06:42]>> That's what I was telling him, but where you're in just a little bit. You know that different.

[00:06:49]>> So your word answer.

[00:06:51]>> Okay.

[00:06:53]>> And in fact, you said I thought she looked like she was over the line. I couldn't really see it. Correct. Is that a guess?

[00:07:04]So, in your written police report, you place your first observation of the defendant on northbound telegraph.

[00:07:12]>> Correct.

[00:07:14]>> But your comments to your fellow officer, you place your first observation on Gibralar Road as she's turning. Correct.

[00:07:22]>> These are two different locations. You would agree?

[00:07:26]>> And your written and recorded statements describe two different sequence of events. You would agree? Not quite.

[00:07:35]Did they describe the exact same event?

[00:07:37]Yes or no?

[00:07:39]>> The sequence of events I was counting took. I'm >> just asking if I let Let him answer the question. She's interrupting him before he >> Yeah, let him finish the answer. Go ahead and answer, sir.

[00:07:51]>> The sequence I gave Goldmith was all the way through the entire sequence of applications that I had made regarding the public.

[00:08:04]So when you said just so you guys know what I saw, it's your statement that you then just told an abbreviated version >> in what would be an incomplete pigeon or in your words an abbreviated scenes barrier.

[00:08:18]>> And then when you told purple that I thought it looked like she was over the line, I couldn't really see.

[00:08:26]>> Is that a guess? You remember saying that? I'm sorry.

[00:08:30]>> Is that also was not stated in your written report. Correct.

[00:08:35]>> It's not in the report. No.

[00:08:37]>> In your written report, you say you saw her crossing over the solid double y double yellow lines an additional two times. Correct.

[00:08:47]>> Is that a yes?

[00:08:48]>> Yes. I'm sorry. Yes.

[00:08:50]>> Okay.

[00:08:50]>> But yet when you were talking to your officer, your fellow officer, you said you couldn't really see her as she turned. Can I explain? No. Well, can I >> lawyer? Wait a minute. Prosecutor can ask you a question.

[00:09:03]>> Yes, that's correct. That's what I said.

[00:09:04]>> Okay. Pro No, let the prosecutor ask the question if you >> feel so inclined.

[00:09:11]>> So, your decision to stop her that night was based on you saying that you observed traffic violations, correct?

[00:09:18]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:09:18]>> Specifically, swerving and crossing on the yellow line. Correct.

[00:09:22]>> And the white lines. The lane markers are going back.

[00:09:30]So would you agree that the timing and location of your observations as reported in your written report um are important to justify a traffic stop?

[00:09:47]>> They what you report is the basis of your stop. Correct.

[00:09:52]>> Yeah. Oh, >> and today your report and the statement that we're talking about with your fellow officers do not match. Correct?

[00:10:02]>> I don't.

[00:10:04]>> So, you think you told your the fellow your fellow officer exactly the same thing you had written in your report?

[00:10:10]So, if you review the body camera as I did just for this one except that we're talking maybe a 30 second block of time like I'm pretty sure but I go keep tell officer Goldmith that yes I did lose contact of her car as she turned up to Jalter and I was catching up to Jialter myself but you can see on the edge of the frame my hand is making this motion meaning as we continue down Jialter I saw her swerving over the lines again.

[00:10:43]George Goldman didn't finish.

[00:10:45]>> Did another car get in between you and Mr. Chinsky?

[00:10:52]>> Then in your report you write directly in front of my skele.

[00:10:58]She was correct.

[00:11:00]>> Is that a yes?

[00:11:01]>> Yes. Yes.

[00:11:01]>> And that would be accurate. Correct.

[00:11:03]>> It does. Under cross-examination, Miss AOK established that a formal police report must serve as an accurate and complete record of an officer's real-time observations, which Corporal Hunter agreed. With that foundation in place, the defense then exposed a significant gap between the officer's written narrative and what his bodywn camera actually captured. While Corporal Hunter's report asserted a continuous line of sight behind Miss Lzinski's vehicle and described distinct lane violations on both Telegraph Road and Jialter Road, the body cam footage showed the officer telling Corporal Goldsmith at the scene that he lost visual contact during the turn and could not clearly determine whether a violation had occurred. Confronted with this recording, Corporal Hunter was compelled to acknowledge the conflict between his written statement and his onseen verbal admissions. Under Michigan Rule of Evidence 613, a witness may be impeached by a prior inconsistent statement, provided that the witness is given the opportunity to explain or deny the earlier statement. By introducing the body cam audio, Miss AOK effectively converted the reports into contradictory claims. This type of impeachment is significant because it does not merely suggest that an officer misremembered a detail. It directly undermines the reliability of the foundational document the prosecution relies upon justify the stop in the first place. Under the precedent established in People versus Dylan, Michigan courts have held that a warrantless traffic stop is constitutionally valid only when the officer possesses a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a violation of the vehicle code has occurred.

[00:12:19]Because the stop was conducted without a warrant, the burden falls on the prosecution to establish that a valid exception to the warrant requirement existed at the moment of the seizure.

[00:12:28]>> Mr. C.

[00:12:36]Hunter, did you go through all the FSTs and inform Officer Goldmith how she did on the FST?

[00:12:43]>> I went to the SS last train.

[00:12:46]>> Did you tell officer Goldmith the results of the FSTs as you performed?

[00:12:52]>> I recall he was there. So >> he was there.

[00:12:54]>> Yes.

[00:12:55]>> So did you did was he there for the PBT?

[00:12:59]I >> I recall. Yes, he was. He wasn't. Okay.

[00:13:06]So, you wanted to explain your answer before about when you started to tell Corporal Goldmith about the stop >> about the reason for the stop case.

[00:13:16]>> Okay. So, what did you want to tell the court?

[00:13:19]>> So, as I initially observed her on the telegraph, she came ahead of me turned off from Jalter.

[00:13:27]>> Okay. There was a period of seconds, some period of time when I lost the visual contact with because I actually didn't turn on the touch itself, >> right?

[00:13:36]>> But once on Jialter, and this is what I use my scalpel down to find later, there was almost a mile of roll over between Telegraph and eventually Mayfair on Valter. Okay. That for that distance, that's why would been behind us. So when you say that you lost um it's like that when she made the turn onto Jibralta Road, you couldn't fully see whether or not she crossed the lines, but you thought she might have.

[00:14:06]Is that an accurate statement?

[00:14:07]>> I couldn't see. Get it. Correct.

[00:14:09]>> Okay. So let's let's leave that one out of the picture. Did she cross the line before that point?

[00:14:15]>> Yes.

[00:14:16]>> Did she cross the line after that point?

[00:14:17]Yes. Uh any other questions?

[00:14:20]>> Any other questions?

[00:14:23]38.

[00:14:27]>> So, your testimony a few moments ago was you lost sight of her vehicle for a few moments as the turn was occurring from Jabbr from telegraph on the Chipal. Yes.

[00:14:39]In your written report, would you agree with me that you wrote that officer Hunter continued to follow the vehicle as it turned and traveled eastbound on the Gibraltar road, crossing over the solid double yellow lines?

[00:14:52]>> Yes.

[00:14:54]>> So, your report indicates as it was turning, you observed her crossing over the lines.

[00:15:02]No, my report indicates 19.

[00:15:05]>> And you observed her as she turned crossing over the lines.

[00:15:10]>> I believe my report indicates that.

[00:15:13]>> Is your report accurate?

[00:15:15]>> Maybe. Can I read?

[00:15:19]>> You have to read it just to make sure.

[00:15:21]>> Do you need to read that to refresh your recollection?

[00:15:25]because I want to make sure that what I say matches what's in my bullet and my report they said I was following her on Walter when I made his observations just like I just told you Kaye when she turned on Walter ahead of me I did not see her because I couldn't >> Did you state in your report anywhere that I'm not aware of that you lost contact with her visual contact with arrested, >> but you felt it was important enough to tell author Goldmith that you couldn't see her. You couldn't see whether or not she crossed over the line in your brief narrative to him.

[00:16:09]>> Yes.

[00:16:15]>> And in fact, you said I thought she looked like she was over the line. I couldn't really see it.

[00:16:21]>> Mhm.

[00:16:22]>> Correct.

[00:16:23]>> Yes.

[00:16:24]So you felt as important part of the events that when you summarized in her testimony is you gave officer Goldsmith a summary of the event. You felt that was important enough to say to officer Goldmith, >> but you didn't find it important enough to say you observed her swerving on.

[00:16:44]Correct.

[00:16:46]when we tell officer Goldmith or in the reporter >> when you told officer Goldmith tell that's what I was say that's what I was saying about the video camera you look back at body cam footage you can see as we continue the brief conversation I'm not asking about that I'm asking you when you told officer Goldmith because your testimony was you gave like a reader's digest version of what occurred in that field I'm sorry >> a brief summary >> very brief >> that's your testimony correct Yes.

[00:17:17]>> So, your brief summary included something that was not in your police report.

[00:17:23]>> Yes.

[00:17:25]>> Which was I lost sight of her. I couldn't really see as she turned going down the if she crossed the double line.

[00:17:31]>> Couldn't see as she turned on the phone.

[00:17:33]>> And that was important for you to tell officer Goulson.

[00:17:37]>> Yes.

[00:17:38]>> You thought it was an important moment.

[00:17:42]I thought it was worth mentioning, >> but you didn't think it was worth mentioning.

[00:17:48]>> Don't strike that. You did not mention to officer Goldmith that you observed the defendant driving on telegraph and she served on telegraph. Correct.

[00:17:59]>> Anything was worth mentioning police report that was one of the basis of your stops was swerving on telegraph.

[00:18:09]Correct.

[00:18:11]locality and circumstances based stop.

[00:18:13]Yes, the swerve on the telegraph was my initial we might call it yellow flag and at least follow the car. Anybody can storm over then. She just told him about >> But you didn't tell officer Goldmith about that, did you?

[00:18:33]>> And in fact, you told officer Goldmith that you were coming down Jialter Road.

[00:18:40]Correct.

[00:18:42]>> Yes.

[00:18:43]>> So you didn't think it was important to tell Officer Goldmith you were even on telegraph?

[00:18:48]>> Oh.

[00:18:50]So after you found out that my client was friends with a plea local police chief and I think you responded earlier you testified and you said like ah or o or something like that >> and then you told officer Goldman just so you guys know what I saw and you didn't mention telegraph correct.

[00:19:11]>> No I didn't.

[00:19:12]>> Mr. Cayenne responded by arguing that the stop satisfied the constitutional threshold for an investigatory detention. Relying on the standard established in Terry versus Ohio, the state contended that Corporal Hunter possessed specific articulable facts.

[00:19:25]His initial observation of the vehicle swerving on Telegraph Road that provided a lawful basis for continued surveillance and the eventual stop evaluated under the totality of the circumstances. Mr. Cayenne further noted that following the stop, Corporal Hunter administered field sobriety testing in accordance with the implied consent provisions of Michigan compiled laws 257.625A, including both standardized field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test. Under Michigan law, implied consent means that any person who operates a motor vehicle on a public road is deemed to have consented to chemical testing if lawfully arrested for an offense related to intoxicated driving. Mr. Cayan argued that these test results provided independent probable cause supporting Miss Lzinski's arrest. Miss AOK, however, moved to suppress the entire evidence gathered after the stop under the constitutional exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine first articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Wong Sun versus United States.

[00:20:16]The doctrine provides that evidence obtained as a direct result of an unconstitutional search or seizure is inadmissible as it is considered tainted by the initial illegality because the defense argued the stop itself was unlawful. All derivative evidence including the field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test metrics would be subject to suppression under the fourth amendment.

[00:20:33]>> Any argument?

[00:20:35]>> John very clear case to me observed this F350 cross the yellow line and was directly in front of him. He followed her like he said it's a yellow flag when she made the turn. I think he's just being honest. I couldn't see whether or not she crossed the O line on the turn, the W line on the turn. But to me, I don't think it matters. He continued to follow her. She crossed the W line and made several lean infractions two more times after that. To me, John is very simple.

[00:21:11]He had reasonable logical suspicion. He had public cost to pull over for an arrest here. He did everything soy test, PBT, arrested her. Then there comes this nonsense about now somebody mentioned that she knows the chief of Jialter. My client well my client the corporal hunter says I don't even know.

[00:21:31]Didn't face me one way or another doing my job. She was already arrested at that point. She was already in the scout car. Very simple for me just there was probable cause to arrest. There was reasonable suspicion. He did everything by the book. The motion should be denied. Thank you. You pass briefly on Yeah, we have very conflicting statements here. The officer says he couldn't see. He just testified a few moments ago and couldn't see the double yellow line. And then his report says the defendant crossed over the same double yellow line twice. And he testified that that was in his report.

[00:22:09]These are two different accounts of when he first observed and what observations he made. The officer said he couldn't really see, but his report says he could see and she crossed over twice. He says, not just once, he says twice, he testified. Uh, we all know our constitution requires that there's specific articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion for initiating a traffic stop. We don't have that here.

[00:22:33]He's given two, this officer has given two different accounts of what occurred, where it occurred, and if the observation even occurred. In his narrative, he said he saw crossing over dig line twice. In his body camera, in his testimony, he says, "Well, he couldn't see. A couple car lines behind it. I I don't really know. I couldn't see." So, both of these accounts cannot be true. Something's not matching up here. These are not minor differences.

[00:22:59]These differences go specifically to where the officer claims he saw an infraction occur that gave rise to him to stop her vehicle. As a result of that stop, she has now been charged with a crime. We cannot rely on conflicting versions of what occurred and what gave rise to this suspicion to justify a seizure. Timing, location, swerving, seeing something, not seeing something, all very important aspects. And his testimony that he couldn't really see in his report saying he saw it happen twice. And his testimony that his report is accurate.

[00:23:33]>> Don't you think his testimony was just consistent with that though? I think what he told me is he could really see from telegraph whether she crossed over the the line lane marker as she was turning on to Jialter from where he was.

[00:23:46]But then he saw her do it twice over the double yellow lines on Jialter between uh Evergreen and Mayfair.

[00:23:54]>> Never states in his narrative that he lost track of a vehicle. Says that he saw her the whole time in his report.

[00:24:01]Saw her cross over twice in his body TM video. He doesn't mention he's behind her on telegraph. In fact, he specifically says coming down Gibralar when she turned, which places him on Jialter Road, not on telegraph road.

[00:24:16]There are many, many inconsistencies on that. And the body camera specifically says, just so you guys know what I saw coming down Jialter when she turned from Telegraph onto Gibralar. I thought she looked like she was over the line. I couldn't really see it.

[00:24:35]That's what and he testified that that was accurate. We can't have two two different stories. So that being said, in this defense's position that they have not met their burden uh for reasonable suspicion, we would ask that the motion be granted and stop be found unlawful and that any evidence obtained from that stop be suppressed.

[00:24:57]>> Thank you. Anything else?

[00:24:59]>> Yes, judge. I agree with you 100%. I think he just picked up where he after the term his testimony is totally consistent with everything that she just said. Although the only important is that he started telling Goldmith what he observed on Jialter. No, he didn't say I observed her while I was traveling on Telegraph Road. But that's what drives me crazy about these body cams. If everything isn't 100%, you know, this guy's just trying to tell the truth. I didn't believe she when she made the terms. I mean, that's not relevant.

[00:25:30]>> No. didn't consider that her to stop.

[00:25:32]She she crossed the other line BEFORE THAT AND TWO TIMES after that.

[00:25:35]>> During the hearing, Judge McN attempted to reconcile the officer's timeline by suggesting that Corporal Hunter may have observed two independent lane violations further down Jibralta Road between Evergreen and Mayfair. After the initial turn, infractions separate from the one the officer admitted he could not clearly see. Miss AOK challenged this reconstruction as a post hawk judicial interpretation unsupported by the evidentiary record, arguing that the court cannot substitute speculative reasoning for the objective digital record captured on the body cam. Miss AOK grounded this argument in People versus Williams, under which Michigan courts have held that the constitutional validity of a traffic stop must be assessed at the precise moment of the seizures inception. The state cannot retroactively supply a factual justification for a detention that lacked one when it began. Under the fourth amendment in article 1 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, law enforcement officers are prohibited from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. The traffic stop constitutes a seizure within the meaning of these provisions, and it must be supported by articulable facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal or civil infraction activity.

[00:26:36]Miss AOK contended that by proceeding to a warrantless detention without a reliable factual nexus between Miss Lazinski and a specific observed violation, Corporal Hunter ran a foul of these fundamental constitutional protections. I don't disagree with you.

[00:26:48]I'm sorry, Miss AOK. I mean, you did a really nice job on the on the brief and the motion and I read it twice because it was intriguing, but I do think he he was traveling behind her on telegraph going northbound. We observed her travel over the lane marker and then I think he didn't see her, which would be consistent whether or not she went over the the middle lane marker at as she was turning on the Gibralar, but then I think he saw her twice crossing the double yellow lines on Gibralar between Evergreen and uh Mayfair. So, I'm sorry.

[00:27:24]I mean, I I see your point. I read it twice, but I'm convinced that there was reasonable suspicion. he had every right to stop her and then that there was probable cause to arrest. I'm going to deny your motion to suppress. Now, I don't know what you guys want to do, but I've either got to resolve this today or we've got to send out notices.

[00:27:47]Are you guys in a position to resolve this now?

[00:27:51]>> Not right now.

[00:27:52]>> Well, I'm not adjourning the jury and I can only tell you I'm not going to be a happy camper if somebody comes in. I got to send out the jury notices. Well, I I think my client's entitled to have a conversation with me based on your ruling today and not go out in the hall and spend five minutes. That's part of their life. So, >> all right. Don't be wise about a little nicer about it. I appreciate your >> fact that you might be disappointed.

[00:28:16]Well, that's fine. That's fine. Um, don't come in that day where I'm not taking a plea plea of anything less other than charge. That's all I'm telling you about. There's no further pre-trials. I will not take a plea of less than owi on the date of the jury trial. So if you resolve it before then, I'd appreciate it if you call. If not, just know I will not take less than ow charged.

[00:28:39]>> Judge McN denied the defense's motion to suppress, ruling that under a totality of the circumstances. Corporal Hunter possessed both the reasonable suspicion necessary to initiate the traffic stop and the probable cause necessary to effectuate the arrest. The court held that the officer's observations of the vehicle's erratic movement constituted specific articulable facts establishing a sufficient factual foundation for a lawful stop at its inception under the Michigan Vehicle Code. Judge McNally also addressed the prospect of a plea agreement, stating that he would not accept any resolution in which Ms. Lzinski pleaded to a lesser offense in operating while intoxicated. This is consistent with wellestablished principles of criminal procedure. Under Michigan court rule, a judge is not bound to accept a plea agreement negotiated between the prosecution and defense and retains the independent authority to reject any agreement that does not serve the interests of justice.

[00:29:25]As I'm writing this video, Miss Lzinski accepted a plea agreement of operating while impaired, and the state dismissed the original charge. Her sentence is scheduled for May 28th, 2026. This case illustrates the critical importance of Fourth Amendment protections in the context of traffic stops and the role that contemporaneous evidence plays in evaluating the credibility of law enforcement accounts. The defense mounted a focused document-driven challenge using the officer's own recorded words to expose the gap between his written report, body cam, and his real-time admissions. While Judge McNally ultimately found the stop constitutionally valid, the hearing underscored a principle that runs throughout suppression practice that the state's evidence must withstand rigorous scrutiny before a prosecution can proceed. Even when an officer's underlying instincts prove correct, the defense retains the right to hold the government to its constitutional burden at every stage of the proceedings.

[00:30:13]Comment below if there is a case that you would like us to cover. Thank you for watching and don't forget to subscribe to see more case analysis.